to store high-level radioactive waste underground: Do you agree or disagree?
(1)
This paper describes the procedure of the debate in the classroom, assesses its
effectiveness, and discusses certain problems that emerged from this activity.
25.2 Research Method
In 2013, the author compared and examined debate-focused courses held in two
universities located in Aichi, central Japan; details of the courses are as follows.
1. “Enshu 1” (Seminar 1), a first-semester course, was taught to third- and fourthyear students at Sugiyama Jogakuen University’s Department of Human
Sciences.
2. “Introduction to debate,” a first-semester course, was taught to second- and
third-year students at Aichi Shukutoku University’s Faculty of Global Culture
and Communication.
3. “Introduction to debate,” this time a second-semester course, was taught to
second- and third-year students at Aichi Shukutoku University’s Faculty of
Global Culture and Communication.
By studying these classes, the author hoped, first, to elucidate how students
understanding of the debate issue—the disposal of high-level radioactive waste—
would be affected by the lessons; and, second, to assess the effectiveness of
debating classes on issues related to natural science facing modern society. In
addition, students completed a questionnaire, “Fundamental Literacy for Members
of Society”
(2) . Through analysis of the results of this survey, the author sought to
gain new insights into methodology to promote a deeper understanding among
students of issues facing modern society.
The course as listed here had four main features. First, the theme of the debate
was announced at the beginning of the course. Second, rather than having students
choose the subject for debate, the topic was assigned to the students. The fact that
the topic was a science-related one was the third feature of the course. Because the
students were from a humanities/social sciences background, their basic knowledge
of science was, on the whole, rather limited. Because there was some concern that
students would not be able to cope with debate, efforts were made to deepen
students’ understanding of the issues involved before the actual debating contest.
For example, Hajimu Yamana, professor at the Kyoto University Research Reactor
Institute (KURRI), and Tomohisa Kakefu of the Japan Science Foundation were
invited as guest speakers, and students also visited the Mizunami Underground
Research Laboratory and the visitor facilities at Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station.
The fourth feature of the course was, therefore, that students were not left to
research the topic by themselves, but were supported by, for example, being given
the opportunity to listen and talk to experts. In addition, there was an element of
experiential learning incorporated into the course in the form of, for example, the
visit to Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station just mentioned.
292
A. Yoshida
(1)
This paper describes the procedure of the debate in the classroom, assesses its
effectiveness, and discusses certain problems that emerged from this activity.
25.2 Research Method
In 2013, the author compared and examined debate-focused courses held in two
universities located in Aichi, central Japan; details of the courses are as follows.
1. “Enshu 1” (Seminar 1), a first-semester course, was taught to third- and fourthyear students at Sugiyama Jogakuen University’s Department of Human
Sciences.
2. “Introduction to debate,” a first-semester course, was taught to second- and
third-year students at Aichi Shukutoku University’s Faculty of Global Culture
and Communication.
3. “Introduction to debate,” this time a second-semester course, was taught to
second- and third-year students at Aichi Shukutoku University’s Faculty of
Global Culture and Communication.
By studying these classes, the author hoped, first, to elucidate how students
understanding of the debate issue—the disposal of high-level radioactive waste—
would be affected by the lessons; and, second, to assess the effectiveness of
debating classes on issues related to natural science facing modern society. In
addition, students completed a questionnaire, “Fundamental Literacy for Members
of Society”
(2) . Through analysis of the results of this survey, the author sought to
gain new insights into methodology to promote a deeper understanding among
students of issues facing modern society.
The course as listed here had four main features. First, the theme of the debate
was announced at the beginning of the course. Second, rather than having students
choose the subject for debate, the topic was assigned to the students. The fact that
the topic was a science-related one was the third feature of the course. Because the
students were from a humanities/social sciences background, their basic knowledge
of science was, on the whole, rather limited. Because there was some concern that
students would not be able to cope with debate, efforts were made to deepen
students’ understanding of the issues involved before the actual debating contest.
For example, Hajimu Yamana, professor at the Kyoto University Research Reactor
Institute (KURRI), and Tomohisa Kakefu of the Japan Science Foundation were
invited as guest speakers, and students also visited the Mizunami Underground
Research Laboratory and the visitor facilities at Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station.
The fourth feature of the course was, therefore, that students were not left to
research the topic by themselves, but were supported by, for example, being given
the opportunity to listen and talk to experts. In addition, there was an element of
experiential learning incorporated into the course in the form of, for example, the
visit to Hamaoka Nuclear Power Station just mentioned.
292
A. Yoshida